.

Archive for the ‘Third Position’ Category

An Old Post of Mine

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

I stumbled upon an older post.

It’s a good reflection. This is at the point where I rejected “mainstream politics” (for some reason I thought Chaim Ben Pesach was mainstream) and supported what I called “Third Positionism.”

But knowing what I know now, it’s not “Third Positionism,” it’s become full blown Marxism.

“In many political movements, there is a debate between extremists and gradualists. The same debate occurred with the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks within Marxist circles for example. The strategy being advocated here is an attempt to infiltrate the system. I personally disagree, the system should not be infiltrated, it should be crushed, and I personally do not believe in gradualism. It’s not enough to support conservatives over liberals. Conservatism is liberalism in the greater scheme of things, and the debate between the two sides is internal to American politics. Compared to the Taliban, the Nazis, the Communists, the Fascists, the Monarchists, The Feudalists, The Ba’athists, etc, the Republicans are basically liberals too. In my opinion, an entire third positionist constitution should be supported, and the entire system of government should be rejected. Race realism should be part of any intelligent government (but I do not label myself “white nationalist” because my understanding of race is more influenced by Coon and Dienekes than by Taylor and Duke). But to work within the system is to submit to the system. In my opinion, a solution has to come outside the system.

However I wish you luck with your approach, it’s just not my approach. Conservatives think the greatest virtue is to wave an American flag and everything would be fine if people from every race were doing that. I deny this, arguing that the very American flag that conservatives wave is responsible for the liberal imperialism that is destroying ethnic nationalism. I realize my views are controversial, but I do not believe in gradualism, so they are supposed to be!

-Metal Gear – 9/20/2008

“The Economist” – Blatant Neo-liberal Capitalism and Imperialism

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

From : http://www.economistdirect.com/

A magazine called The Economist is talking about “setting Syria free.” Spreading “freedom” means spreading capitalism. HAIL THE HEROIC BA’ATHISTS! Hail Saddam Hussein and hail Bashar al-Assad. Long live Secular Authoritarian role. Death to liberalism and a slower death to Islamic Fundamentalism!

Hail the Ba’athists (they have much in common with Stalinists)!

Pragmatism

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

The Definition

prag·ma·tism/ˈpragməˌtizəm/
Noun:

A pragmatic attitude or policy: “ideology was tempered with pragmatism”.
An approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Pragmatism is a sensible realization of the way things are and working with the realistic conditions to achieve goals.

Rarely does someone get all the cake and to eat it too. In order to achieve a goal, points that are peripheral to the goal must be sacrificed.

For instance “Stalinism” in America is neither an achievable nor desirable goal. It would blow away the current infrastructure and “start from scratch” (this was reasonable in Russia in 1917, not in America today) and Stalin’s system would not have the “speed” to keep up with a modern economy. That said, Stalinism was the logical pragmatic application of socialism to the Russian question. I am a Stalinist but not an imperial Stalinist.

Socialism in America will need a centralized cadre of professional revolutionaries as always (not a “mass movement”), but it will also be built on top of the culture and infrastructure that currently exists in America. If socialism occurs in America, it will be a sort of market socialism with revolutionaries engaged in business management and economic planning as opposed to a command economy from “top to bottom.” Such a command economy is not pragmatic or realistic from the perspective of dialectical materialism.

RAHOWA : Gangster Bolshevik Radio

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

Click Here

American Onslaught host Breckenridge Elkins and his demented troll (demented is good here) “Yakub Israel” team up with Free Media Productions for an anti-social radio program. This radio show is now included into the Audiozone section of the Free Media Productions website as well. Watch the termites as they eat away at society. If they can’t build something, at least they will destroy something.

Vulgar Marxism vs. Progressive Nationalism

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

“I am not a Marxist.” – Karl Marx

“There is no knowledge that is not power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

A “vulgar Marxist” holds that man has no free will and economic forces just happen in succession. To a vulgar Marxist, ideas do not really change society. Ideas are just an illusion of free will. Scholars debate the extent to which Marx (and Engels) believed this. I am trying to settle the historical question myself, but I do not believe Marx was quite this rigid. It makes no difference in terms of my own viewpoints, but it is an interesting historical question.

I personally believe that economic forces are a reality, just like genetic forces, national forces, cultural forces, religious forces and ethnic forces. To an extent these forces are intertwined with each other. For instance Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argued that the social contract was created by man to create Governments, because the nature of wilderness caused life to be “brutish and short.” This means that man formed his Government in reaction to material conditions. However for every problem, there are multiple solutions, and even I believe Marx was too confident that society would move in a particular direction or that society would even address the problems. That being said, I do not believe Marx was as linear as he is portrayed both by ultra-Orthodox “Marxists” and by anti-Communists.

While the forces iterated in the above paragraph are relevant to my worldview, I believe that when man becomes more conscious of these forces, he or she actually increases in power and control and increases in ability to engineer society. This is a very pragmatic way of thinking, but also a way of thinking which argues that man subjects nature.  Yet I am arguing that if man is unaware of these forces, then man has less power.   Hitler was very opposed to this thinking, arguing instead that man is subject to laws of nature. In contrast to Hitler, Mussolini would agree with it arguing that the state (a literate political class) creates the society. Anton Lavey (a satanist thinker) would agree with this thinking as well.

Lenin seemed to reject vulgar Marxism as well. Lenin argued that the party must guide the working class. “Democratic centralism” is a rejection of vulgar Marxism. It contradicts the idea that revolution happens on its own.

Stalin as well rejected this viewpoint. He was quoted as saying “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” If only economics mattered, and ideology did not, then Stalin would not have made this statement.

So we can conclude that Stalin, Lenin and future Marxists revised vulgar Marxism. The question is did Marx and Engels believe it? I do not think so personally.

east coast, west coast and class consciousness

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

The link

Originally Posted by vacapinta at 8:33 AM on April 4, 2006

The main difference, culturally, is that East coasters are much more class-conscious. This is reflected in the way they dress and their ambitions. There are a lot more "private clubs" and other social stratifications than on the West coast. You "know" when someone is wealther than you. Here on the West coast, the billionaire could be the guy in sandals eating across from you at the funky Thai food place.


I most certainly agree. A walk through New York City makes it so obvious that money rules the world. The implications of money become visually obvious. It hits you that Marx wasn’t an idiot after all, even if you do not hang on every word like an anti-revisionist.

Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism vs. Gangster Bolshevism

Monday, September 6th, 2010

anti revisionist marxism-leninism :

Trying to follow Marx, Lenin and Stalin as closely as possible.

Gangster Bolshevism :

Using gangster tactics against the capitalist establishment. You don’t care about revisionism or lack of revisionism. Whether “Marx would have agreed” is not the point.

I consider my ideology to include what i call gangster Bolshevism. Of course the anti-revisionist Marxists are still fighting the same fight. But I don’t care about theory or what Marx would have thought. I also don’t believe the need for order in society will ever disappear, even though the importance of cash will be lessened.

Video – Metal Gear on Ground Zero Mosque

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

Metal Gear discusses the mosque, atheism, Marxism, revisionist Stalinism and other viewpoints.

National Bolshevist Heroes 1- Chandra Bose

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

The link
Here is an interesting thread on pofo about an Indian man with a solid world view.

“1. The party will stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc., and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes.
“2. It will stand for the complete political and economic liberation of the Indian people.
“3. It will stand for a Federal Government for India as the ultimate goal, but will believe in a strong Central Government with dictatorial powers for some years to come, in order to put India on her feet.
“4. It will believe in a sound system of state-planning for the reorganization of the agricultural and industrial life of the country.
“5. It will seek to build up a new social structure on the basis of the village communities of the past, that were ruled by the village “Panch” and will strive to break down the existing social barriers like caste.
“6. It will seek to establish a new monetary and credit system in the light of the theories and the experiments that have been and are current in the modern world.
“7. It will seek to abolish landlordism and introduce a uniform land-tenure system for the whole of India.
“8. It will not stand for a democracy in the Mid-Victorian sense of the term, but will believe in government by a strong party bound together by military discipline, as the only means of holding India together and preventing a chaos, when Indians are free and are thrown entirely on their own resources.
“9. It will not restrict itself to a campaign inside India but will resort to international propaganda also, in order to strengthen India’s case for liberty, and will attempt to utilize the existing international organizations.
“10. It will endeavor to unite all the radical organizations under a national executive so that whenever any action is taken, there will be simultaneous activity on many fronts.”

Giovanni Gentile (founder of Fascism) admired Karl Marx

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

The Link
It is my opinion that genuine fascism is influenced by Marxism but aims to unify the nation and avoid class struggle instead of advocating the class struggle. But it is still a class conscious ideology. Nazism is not really fascism but just racialism that is very unscientific.

Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) described himself as “the philosopher of Fascism.” He ghostwrote A Doctrine of Fascism (1930) for his country’s prime minister and dictator, Benito Mussolini.

Philosophically he drew from Kant, Hegel and Marx — system builders. He had some admiration for Nietzsche, and he had a romantic view of historic leaders of Italian nationalism.

He had been an academic. the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Palermo University from 1907 to 1914 and later at the University of Pisa. In 1923 he accepted Mussolini’s offer of the post of Minister of Education.

Gentile admired Marx, but he and his fellow fascists were opposed to class struggle. Their nationalism embodied a unified patriotic devotion to the state. He and fellow fascists viewed Italy as a single organic entity and unifying force that bound people together by their ancestry. Mussolini, fascism’s great leader, said:

For us the nation is not just territory but something spiritual… A nation is great when it translates into reality the force of its spirit.

Gentile’s admiration for Marx can be compared to the youthful Adolf Hitler’s admiration for the socialist labor movement marching together in a seemingly endless file through the streets of Vienna. What Hitler admired was the labor movement’s mobilization for the sake of power. What Gentile admired in Marx was the unity of his system of thought, including its historicity. Gentile wanted to consider the fascist movement as progressive within a historical context.

Fascist philosophy held to the idea of struggle and conflict moving history forward, but rather than between classes it was between weak and strong nations. In The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, Gentile wrote that “mankind only progresses through division, and progress is achieved through the clash and victory of one side over another”

The Fascists believed in a national rebirth and in a new fascist man, Uomo Fascista as Gentile called it. This is vaguely similar to Nietzsche’s Übermensch, which some have translated to Superman. But Gentile was misreading Nietzsche. In Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the protagonist contends that “man is something which ought to be overcome,” that apes are a laughingstock to man and that man would be a laughing stock for Übermensch. Meanwhile, in the minds of some people in the world, Mussolini and fascist men displaying their superiority through pompous displays, swagger, bullying and chest beatings were in appearance ape-like.

The Fascist philosophy held that fascism was filling the need for purpose in the world that would otherwise be absurd. The philosophy of Gentile stood against the positivist philosophy, the philosophy that limited authentic knowledge to that based on sense experience. Fascist philosophy, claimed Gentile, was not skeptical, nor agnostic, nor pessimistic, nor passively optimistic. Fascism, he claimed, was man engaged in a moral and intellectual struggle in an exercise of free will in the creation of a new world.

Giovanni Gentile would remain loyal to Mussolini until his own assassination in April 1944, eleven months before Musolini’s assassination.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor